For Bush, “Green Energy” Means Greenbacks for Corporations

President Bush staged a mid-May “photo op” at a bio-diesel plant in Virginia aimed at convincing Americans that his deeply-flawed energy plan, which now includes a provision calling for research into bio-fuels, is worth passing.

What’s wrong with this picture? Bush’s energy plan remains much the same as it was three years ago, when he and Vice-President Dick Cheney worked with energy industry honchos to hatch a secret scheme calling for 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants, 38,000 miles of new gas pipelines; 255,000 miles of transmission lines and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling.

In April, Bush, the former oil man, added a couple of other priorities to that list: building new nuclear power plants and constructing the nation’s first new oil refineries since 1976. In his budget request to Congress, he also asked for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for the energy industry.

It is hard to imagine, but Republicans in Congress may go even farther than Bush. In April, the House passed an energy bill that would:

• Increase subsidies to the energy industry to a whopping $8 billion; and

• Exempt oil refinery owners from liability for contaminating groundwater with MTBE, a cancer-causing gasoline additive that has polluted thousands of underground water sources across the country.

Not to be outdone, the Senate—which as this publication went to press still had not voted on its own energy bill—passed a budget including $11 billion in subsidies to the energy industry.

Now Bush is telling Congress he wants the energy bill on his desk by August.

What has changed over the past three years? Not much except the “message” —the way Bush and some conservative members of Congress are talking about their energy plans. At the urging of pollster Frank Luntz, they are blatantly (and hypocritically) stealing the phrasing of true clean energy advocates like Leo Gerard, USW President, and Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, who co-chair the Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, environmental, business, urban, and faith-based organizations in support of energy independence. USW and Sierra Club want to see a major government investment in renewable energy, including solar, wind, geothermal and biomass. They contend that renewable energy will slow global warming, improve public health, cut energy bills, create jobs in emerging industries and enhance national security by reducing our reliance on foreign oil.

Apparently the Apollo idea and the positive, “can-do” message of Gerard, Pope and other clean energy advocates has captured the attention of the GOP—but republicans are using a similar message to mask their own harmful agenda.

Business Week magazine reported in May that Luntz issued a strong warning to fellow Republicans in a memo sent in late winter: “Right now, the Democrats are exhibiting perfect pitch when it comes to their energy message... You need to retake this issue now before the next spike at the pump and before the next surge in our home-heating bills.”

Luntz recommended that Republicans hammer hard on four themes: energy independence, national security, the power of innovation and new technology, and the importance of balancing new supplies with conservation.

Not surprisingly, Luntz’s advice could have been lifted directly from any number of speeches or statements by Pope or Gerard.

“Rather than worry about making sure we can secure oil from corporations in the Mid-East, you’d better be worried about securing jobs and energy self-sufficiency for workers in the Midwest,” said Gerard in a recent press statement.

“In the face of a trading system that’s devastating both workers and the environment, an Apollo project for energy independence has the potential to unite trade unionists and environmentalists in building an economy that values every worker’s right to bargain for a decent living and every citizen’s right to live in a healthier world.”

LEARN MORE

To learn more about the Bush plan—and about what a real clean energy plan should look like—visit Sierra Club’s global warming and energy web pages:

Examine the Bush Plan here.

Check out Sierra Club’s Clean Energy Fact Sheet here.

Find out more about the Apollo Alliance here.

TAKE ACTION

Tell your Senators to oppose the energy bill here.

* * *

Steelworkers Oppose Bush Energy Bill

The United Steelworkers union is on record in opposition to the Bush energy plan and has joined with environmental partners to publicly blast the Bush proposal. The bill, which United Steelworkers of America President Leo Gerard called “a waste of money and natural resources” would:

• put communities at risk of more air and water pollution;

• increase the country’s dependence on oil;

• fail to modernize the electricity grid; and

• saddle taxpayers with billions of dollars in corporate giveaways.

William Klinefelter, political director of the Steelworkers, said the union supports an energy policy that protects the environment while fostering a healthy economy. “We can create new jobs, bolster our economy and reduce the trade deficit if we just make the investments we need to shift to more efficient and cleaner energy options,” he said at an April 18 press conference in Washington sponsored by a new coalition called “Re-energize America” that is fighting the Bush energy plan.